Murray v. Pyle

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

TOSHALYN MURRAY,

Plaintiff,

Civil Action 2:22-cv-2047

v. Judge Michael H. Watson

Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson

TOM PYLE, et al.,

Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 13). The

Undersigned previously issued a Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5) screening Plaintiff’s

original complaint. Because there is a new operative complaint, that Report and Recommendation

(Doc. 5) is WITHDRAWN. Now, having performed a screen of the Second Amended Complaint,

the Undersigned RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) be

DISMISSED.

I. BACKGROUND

After Plaintiff’s cause of action was severed from two other plaintiffs (Doc. 1), she initiated

the present action on May 17, 2022 (Doc. 3). Because Plaintiff’s original complaint was too vague

for the Court to discern whether she had stated a viable claim, she was ordered to file an amended

complaint by July 14, 2022. (Doc. 4). Specifically, the Court ordered Plaintiff to identify which

claims she was bringing against each defendant and, under Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, provide:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or

different types of relief.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1)–(3).

To assist in complying with the Court’s rules, Plaintiff was provided with the Court’s

Complaint Form (Pro Se), and directed to consult the Court’s pro se guide, which provides basic

information regarding the preparation of a complaint. (Doc. 4); see A Guide for Pro Se Civil

Litigants: Representing Yourself in the United States District Court for the Southern District of

Ohio, Sec. III.1, available at http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/pro-se-handbook. Plaintiff failed to

amend by the deadline, but later requested additional time to do so (Doc. 7), which was granted

(Doc. 8). Plaintiff then filed an amended complaint (Doc. 11), which, upon review, the Court

noted was still incomprehensible (Doc. 12). Plaintiff was afforded a “final attempt” at amendment.

(Id.).

That final attempt, Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 13), is now before the

Court for screening.

II. STANDARD

Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must dismiss any portion of

the Complaint that is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,

or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2); see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 608 (6th Cir. 1997) (“Even if a

non-prisoner pays the filing fee and/or is represented by counsel, the complaint must be screened

under § 1915(e)(2).”). While true that pro se complaints are to be construed liberally, Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972), “basic pleading essentials” are still required, Wells v. Brown,

891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989). Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires

a complaint to set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled

to relief.”

III. DISCUSSION

In her Seconded Amended Complaint (Doc. 13), Plaintiff sues twenty-three Defendants:

Athens County Sheriff’s Office and several of its employees, Athens City School District and

several of its employees, Athens County Children’s Services and several of its employees, Athens

County Police Department and several of its employees, the Athens County Clerk of Courts,

Southeastern Ohio Legal Services, and Carol Dawson, Plaintiff’s landlord. For the following

reasons, it is RECOMMENDED that the claims against all Defendants be dismissed.

Plaintiff’s allegations are wide-ranging and difficult to follow. Primarily they concern how

various organizations across the county investigated Plaintiff’s claims about her son and daughter,

and how each was treated at school. But upon review of the allegations, Plaintiff has not

successfully alleged any violation of her constitutional or federal rights.

For instance, she alleges that the Athens County Sheriff’s Office and several of its

employees failed to properly investigate missing person reports she made about her daughter and

an alleged break-in at her house. (Doc. 13, ¶¶ 1–6). Yet, “there is no right to an adequate police

investigation.” Khaled v. Dearborn Heights Police Dep’t, 711 F. App’x 766, 771 (6th Cir. 2017)

(citing Mitchell v. McNeil, 487 F.3d 374, 378 (6th Cir. 2007)). Similarly, regarding the Athens

County Police Department, she alleges that when her son was “stabbed by another student” at his

middle school, the police “stated there was no evidence to support this allegation and refused to

take the report.” (Doc. 13, ¶ 18).

She also describes her disappointment with the actions of teachers and administrators at

her children’s schools, including disagreements over picking her daughter up late, her son’s

truancy, and cruel comments made toward her son by teachers. (Id., ¶¶ 8–12). But neither do any

of these allegations amount to a cognizable federal claim.

At least one Defendant, the Athens County Clerk of Courts, enjoys immunity from suit.

See, e.g., Swann v. Reese, No. 3:20-cv-509, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90043 (S.D. Ohio May 19,

2022). And, for many of the remaining defendants, Plaintiff has stated very little and certainly not

enough for a case to proceed against them. For example, Plaintiff is disappointed that: a

receptionist at Southeastern Ohio Legal Services misinformed her about the legal representation it

offers (id., ¶ 22), the executive director of Athens County Children’s Services did not return her

phone calls (id., ¶ 17), and her landlord is charging her the improper amount of rent (id., ¶ 23).

None of these states a federal claim.

At base, though the Court has afforded Plaintiff several opportunities to clarify her

allegations, the Seconded Amended Complaint remains incomprehensible. It lists nearly two

dozen Defendants and provides no clear articulation of what federal claims she is bringing.

Consequently, she has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and dismissal is

appropriate at this point, especially because she has been given opportunities to amend her

pleadings.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Undersigned RECOMMENDS Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. 13) be DISMISSED.

Procedure on Objections

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen

(14) days of the date of this Report, file and serve on all parties written objections to those specific

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made, together with supporting

authority for the objection(s). A Judge of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the Report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is

made. Upon proper objections, a Judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in

part, the findings or recommendations made herein, may receive further evidence or may recommit

this matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to have the District Judge review the Report

and Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the right to appeal the decision of

the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 6, 2022 /s/ Kimberly A. Jolson

KIMBERLY A. JOLSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE